UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nothing is racist, not even your repeated insinuation that obama is from africa.
just as i predicted.
Some are more equal than others...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
just as i predicted.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
rushton was a respected academic,
i never said kruggo is crazy, i said he is either a dolt or a con man.
kruggo's claims are clearly spelled out in his own words on a vidya in this very thread
anyone who ever balanced a checkbook can see that kruggo is either an ignorant dumbass or a liar.
you are therefore the one trying to "misattribute ideas" to me, as you have done on numerous occasions.
no-one who has ever argued with you will believe a thing you claim the other guys said, since you are notorious for your "creative" approach to quotes.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so thats your argument:
"Doctoral Thesis Or It Never Happened!"
you are really pathetic.
youre too lazy to even watch the vidyas YOU posted.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i did, but none of what you said was in there.
please point me to a timestamp.
ok, let's look it up then and see if you are remembering things correctly.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/satellite-data-proves-earth-has-not-been-warming-the-past-18-years-its-stable.828377/page-77#post-10585343
well whadya know? you are remembering it exactly backwards.
you claimed that NO ONE in california gets BLS price on anything.
then i pointed out that safeway vallejo sells them for $1.88 a dozen, less than the BLS of $2.112 a dozen.
then you said PROVE IT!
and then i did. hence why i have a screenshot of safeway eggs in my photobucket, you fucking dolt.
do you lie on purpose, or are you really this stupid?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that is something that only a white nationalist would say.
point me to the timestamp then.
nope.
for quick reference, go check on the total 100% lie you just told about safeway eggs and BLS prices.
you lying racist.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
is The Brahmin In Chief's father not a Nigerian Govt Official?
does The One's paternal family not still live in Nigeria?
did The O-Man not claim to have been born in africa, and raised in indonesia as a "citizen of the world" in his book jacket bio?
does the word Bwana now mean something different and super racist, like Choom Boy, Macacca, and Halfrican do now?
you just keep looking for those Thuper Theekrit code words dippledink. you may actually find one by chance some day.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, obama did not make that claim in his bio, the guy who penned that book did.
are you trying to say your usage of the word "halfrican" to describe obama is not racist?
that has about as much basis in reality as your claims about who posted what about safeway eggs in vallejo.
why do you insist on showing how stupid you are?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
60 eggs = 1 dozeni did, but none of what you said was in there.
please point me to a timestamp.
ok, let's look it up then and see if you are remembering things correctly.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/satellite-data-proves-earth-has-not-been-warming-the-past-18-years-its-stable.828377/page-77#post-10585343
well whadya know? you are remembering it exactly backwards.
you claimed that NO ONE in california gets BLS price on anything.
then i pointed out that safeway vallejo sells them for $1.88 a dozen, less than the BLS of $2.112 a dozen.
then you said PROVE IT!
and then i did. hence why i have a screenshot of safeway eggs in my photobucket, you fucking dolt.
do you lie on purpose, or are you really this stupid?
bulk price discount = actual price of eggs
argued previously, disregarded by you, actual price of 12 eggs in safeway previously presented.
more pretense by you.
lies
more lies.
go piss on yourself, i cant be bothered do waste my precious urine on you
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Halfrican
Self Attributed description by my brother's girlfriends half african daughter.
i thought it was charming, you apparently think it's a vicious slander.
you are a moron.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's your claim, now go ahead and prove it
Find one quote from Krugman or Piketty that shows that's their solution to economic inequality
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The distribution of wealth is one of today’s most widely discussed and controversial issues. But what
do we really know about its evolution over the long term? Do the dynamics of private capital
accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx
believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and
technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony
among the classes, as Simon Kuznets thought in the twentieth century? What do we really know about
how wealth and income have evolved since the eighteenth century, and what lessons can we derive
from that knowledge for the century now under way?
These are the questions I attempt to answer in this book. Let me say at once that the answers
contained herein are imperfect and incomplete. But they are based on much more extensive historical
and comparative data than were available to previous researchers, data covering three centuries and
more than twenty countries, as well as on a new theoretical framework that affords a deeper
understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Modern economic growth and the diffusion of
knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist apocalypse but have not modified the deep
structures of capital and inequality—or in any case not as much as one might have imagined in the
optimistic decades following World War II. When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of
growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in
the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that
radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are
nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and ensure that the general interest
takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding
protectionist and nationalist reactions. The policy recommendations I propose later in the book tend
in this direction. They are based on lessons derived from historical experience, of which what
follows is essentially a narrative."
-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (introduction)
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
do we really know about its evolution over the long term? Do the dynamics of private capital
accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx
believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and
technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony
among the classes, as Simon Kuznets thought in the twentieth century? What do we really know about
how wealth and income have evolved since the eighteenth century, and what lessons can we derive
from that knowledge for the century now under way?
These are the questions I attempt to answer in this book. Let me say at once that the answers
contained herein are imperfect and incomplete. But they are based on much more extensive historical
and comparative data than were available to previous researchers, data covering three centuries and
more than twenty countries, as well as on a new theoretical framework that affords a deeper
understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Modern economic growth and the diffusion of
knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist apocalypse but have not modified the deep
structures of capital and inequality—or in any case not as much as one might have imagined in the
optimistic decades following World War II. When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of
growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in
the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that
radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are
nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and ensure that the general interest
takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding
protectionist and nationalist reactions. The policy recommendations I propose later in the book tend
in this direction. They are based on lessons derived from historical experience, of which what
follows is essentially a narrative."
-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (introduction)
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, 60 eggs is actually 5 dozen.
add division to the list of things you can't do along with exponents.
but at least you can remember history 100% opposite from how it happened.
and i'm happy to post the link to the thread so everyone can see how you are lying straight through your teeth.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that must be why they include it in the racial slur database.
http://rsdb.org/search?q=Halfrican
why do you have such a hard time accepting that you are racist?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats the Keyensian Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
1 ) To Keynes, excessive saving, i.e. saving beyond planned investment, was a serious problem, encouraging recession or even depression. (Spend Every Dime)
2 ) Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is, policies that acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high – and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. (spend even more on credit)
3 ) Two aspects of Keynes's model has implications for policy:
First, there is the "Keynesian multiplier", first developed by Richard F. Kahn in 1931. Exogenous increases in spending, such as an increase in government outlays, increases total spending by a multiple of that increase. A government could stimulate a great deal of new production with a modest outlay if:
- The people who receive this money then spend most on consumption goods and save the rest.
- This extra spending allows businesses to hire more people and pay them, which in turn allows a further increase in consumer spending.
Second, Keynes re-analyzed the effect of the interest rate on investment. In the classical model, the supply of funds (saving) determines the amount of fixed business investment. That is, under the classical model, since all savings are placed in banks, and all business investors in need of borrowed funds go to banks, the amount of savings determines the amount that is available to invest. Under Keynes's model, the amount of investment is determined independently by long-term profit expectations and, to a lesser extent, the interest rate. The latter opens the possibility of regulating the economy through money supply changes, via monetary policy. Under conditions such as the Great Depression, Keynes argued that this approach would be relatively ineffective compared to fiscal policy. But, during more "normal" times, monetary expansion can stimulate the economy.[citation needed] (?????)
4 ) Profit
is that clear enough for ya? from the only source you accept, Wikipedia.
fyi: those exact same precepts were the assumptions underlying both Kruggo's and Frenchy's vidyas that YOU posted.
but they didnt spell it out for you so you pretend thats not how they roll.
from anyone else i would say you were feigning ignorance but from you.. "whats feigning mean?"
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The Central Contradiction of Capitalism: r > g
The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to
itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated in particular with the diffusion of
knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially
threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.
The principal destabilizing force has to do with the fact that the private rate of return on capital, r,
can be significantly higher for long periods of time than the rate of growth of income and output, g.
The inequality r > g implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and
wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably
tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once
constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.
The consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying,
especially when one adds that the return on capital varies directly with the size of the initial stake and
that the divergence in the wealth distribution is occurring on a global scale.
The problem is enormous, and there is no simple solution. Growth can of course be encouraged by
investing in education, knowledge, and nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the
growth rate to 4 or 5 percent a year. History shows that only countries that are catching up with more
advanced economies—such as Europe during the three decades after World War II or China and other
emerging countries today—can grow at such rates. For countries at the world technological frontier—
and thus ultimately for the planet as a whole—there is ample reason to believe that the growth rate
will not exceed 1–1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic policies are adopted.
With an average return on capital of 4–5 percent, it is therefore likely that r > g will again become
the norm in the twenty-first century, as it had been throughout history until the eve of World War I. In
the twentieth century, it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return
on capital, thereby creating the illusion that the fundamental structural contradiction of capitalism (r >
g) had been overcome.
To be sure, one could tax capital income heavily enough to reduce the private return on capital to
less than the growth rate. But if one did that indiscriminately and heavy-handedly, one would risk
killing the motor of accumulation and thus further reducing the growth rate. Entrepreneurs would then
no longer have the time to turn into rentiers, since there would be no more entrepreneurs.
The right solution is a progressive annual tax on capital. This will make it possible to avoid an
endless inegalitarian spiral while preserving competition and incentives for new instances of
primitive accumulation. For example, I earlier discussed the possibility of a capital tax schedule with
rates of 0.1 or 0.5 percent on fortunes under 1 million euros, 1 percent on fortunes between 1 and 5
million euros, 2 percent between 5 and 10 million euros, and as high as 5 or 10 percent for fortunes of
several hundred million or several billion euros. This would contain the unlimited growth of global
inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long run and
that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the self-regulated market. Historical
experience shows, moreover, that such immense inequalities of wealth have little to do with the
entrepreneurial spirit and are of no use in promoting growth. Nor are they of any “common utility,” to
borrow the nice expression from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen with
which I began this book.
The difficulty is that this solution, the progressive tax on capital, requires a high level of
international cooperation and regional political integration. It is not within the reach of the nationstates
in which earlier social compromises were hammered out. Many people worry that moving
toward greater cooperation and political integration within, say, the European Union only undermines
existing achievements (starting with the social states that the various countries of Europe constructed
in response to the shocks of the twentieth century) without constructing anything new other than a vast
market predicated on ever purer and more perfect competition. Yet pure and perfect competition
cannot alter the inequality r > g, which is not the consequence of any market “imperfection.” On the
contrary. Although the risk is real, I do not see any genuine alternative: if we are to regain control of
capitalism, we must bet everything on democracy—and in Europe, democracy on a European scale.
Larger political communities such as the United States and China have a wider range of options, but
for the small countries of Europe, which will soon look very small indeed in relation to the global
economy, national withdrawal can only lead to even worse frustration and disappointment than
currently exists with the European Union. The nation-state is still the right level at which to modernize
any number of social and fiscal policies and to develop new forms of governance and shared
ownership intermediate between public and private ownership, which is one of the major challenges
for the century ahead. But only regional political integration can lead to effective regulation of the
globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century."
-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (conclusion)
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to
itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated in particular with the diffusion of
knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially
threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.
The principal destabilizing force has to do with the fact that the private rate of return on capital, r,
can be significantly higher for long periods of time than the rate of growth of income and output, g.
The inequality r > g implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and
wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably
tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once
constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.
The consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying,
especially when one adds that the return on capital varies directly with the size of the initial stake and
that the divergence in the wealth distribution is occurring on a global scale.
The problem is enormous, and there is no simple solution. Growth can of course be encouraged by
investing in education, knowledge, and nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the
growth rate to 4 or 5 percent a year. History shows that only countries that are catching up with more
advanced economies—such as Europe during the three decades after World War II or China and other
emerging countries today—can grow at such rates. For countries at the world technological frontier—
and thus ultimately for the planet as a whole—there is ample reason to believe that the growth rate
will not exceed 1–1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic policies are adopted.
With an average return on capital of 4–5 percent, it is therefore likely that r > g will again become
the norm in the twenty-first century, as it had been throughout history until the eve of World War I. In
the twentieth century, it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return
on capital, thereby creating the illusion that the fundamental structural contradiction of capitalism (r >
g) had been overcome.
To be sure, one could tax capital income heavily enough to reduce the private return on capital to
less than the growth rate. But if one did that indiscriminately and heavy-handedly, one would risk
killing the motor of accumulation and thus further reducing the growth rate. Entrepreneurs would then
no longer have the time to turn into rentiers, since there would be no more entrepreneurs.
The right solution is a progressive annual tax on capital. This will make it possible to avoid an
endless inegalitarian spiral while preserving competition and incentives for new instances of
primitive accumulation. For example, I earlier discussed the possibility of a capital tax schedule with
rates of 0.1 or 0.5 percent on fortunes under 1 million euros, 1 percent on fortunes between 1 and 5
million euros, 2 percent between 5 and 10 million euros, and as high as 5 or 10 percent for fortunes of
several hundred million or several billion euros. This would contain the unlimited growth of global
inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long run and
that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the self-regulated market. Historical
experience shows, moreover, that such immense inequalities of wealth have little to do with the
entrepreneurial spirit and are of no use in promoting growth. Nor are they of any “common utility,” to
borrow the nice expression from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen with
which I began this book.
The difficulty is that this solution, the progressive tax on capital, requires a high level of
international cooperation and regional political integration. It is not within the reach of the nationstates
in which earlier social compromises were hammered out. Many people worry that moving
toward greater cooperation and political integration within, say, the European Union only undermines
existing achievements (starting with the social states that the various countries of Europe constructed
in response to the shocks of the twentieth century) without constructing anything new other than a vast
market predicated on ever purer and more perfect competition. Yet pure and perfect competition
cannot alter the inequality r > g, which is not the consequence of any market “imperfection.” On the
contrary. Although the risk is real, I do not see any genuine alternative: if we are to regain control of
capitalism, we must bet everything on democracy—and in Europe, democracy on a European scale.
Larger political communities such as the United States and China have a wider range of options, but
for the small countries of Europe, which will soon look very small indeed in relation to the global
economy, national withdrawal can only lead to even worse frustration and disappointment than
currently exists with the European Union. The nation-state is still the right level at which to modernize
any number of social and fiscal policies and to develop new forms of governance and shared
ownership intermediate between public and private ownership, which is one of the major challenges
for the century ahead. But only regional political integration can lead to effective regulation of the
globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century."
-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (conclusion)
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
literally retarded.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
ohh the magical "racial slur database" that includes Ese, Vato, Mestizo, African, Bro, Canadian (????), Oriental, and even mispellings of the word Hmong. , and pretty much any word that describes race, just to cover all the faux butthurt bases
cram it with walnuts.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
(Spend Every Dime)
Not what the theory says
(spend even more on credit)
Not what the theory says
(?????)
???
Profit
???
Yeah, you've shown beyond doubt you don't understand what you're even arguing against
Just like I said
Not what the theory says
(spend even more on credit)
Not what the theory says
(?????)
???
Profit
???
Yeah, you've shown beyond doubt you don't understand what you're even arguing against
Just like I said